N. v. SWITZERLANDJOINT DISSENTING OPINION of MM. BUSUTTIL, GÖZÜBÜYÜK, WEITZEL,
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: May 14, 1993
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
JOINT DISSENTING OPINION of MM. BUSUTTIL, GÖZÜBÜYÜK, WEITZEL,
SCHERMERS, DANELIUS, Mrs. THUNE and Mr. ROZAKIS
We regret that we disagree with the majority in respect of the
complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention of the imposition
of advance court costs on the applicant.
While we consider that Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention is
applicable to these proceedings (see above, para. 84), we have reached
a different conclusion as to the compliance with this provision.
It is true that in the present case the Federal Court informed
the applicant on 14 December 1989 of the lack of prospects of success
of his action (see above, paras. 41 and 95). However, the right under
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention of access to a court includes the
right to "determination" by that court of the applicant's claims within
the meaning of this provision. The decision by which the Federal Court
informed the applicant on 14 December 1989 of the lack of prospects of
success of his action cannot be regarded as the "determination" of the
applicant's claims.
In this respect we further note that the Federal Court was not
acting as an appeal or constitutional court, but as the first and only
court called upon to decide the applicant's claims.
In our opinion, the amount requested from the applicant, i.e.
6,500 SFr, was for an indigent person prohibitively high. It
effectively barred the applicant's access to the sole court competent
to deal with his claims. The imposition of the costs thus restricted
his access to court to such an extent that it impaired the very essence
of his right under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
In our view, therefore, there has been a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in respect of the imposition of
advance court costs.
APPENDIX I
HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Date Item
_________________________________________________________________
1) 23 April 1987 Introduction of Application No. 15252/89
2) 25 July 1989 Introduction of Application No. 15628/89
3) 18 May 1989 Introduction of Application No. 15629/89
4) 18 May 1989 Introduction of Application No. 15630/89
5) 3 October 1989 Introduction of Application No. 15857/89
6) 10 September 1990 Introduction of Application No. 17384/90
1) 20 July 1989 Registration of Application No. 15252/89
2) 4 October 1989 Registration of Application No. 15628/89
3) 16 October 1989 Registration of Application No. 15629/89
4) 16 October 1989 Registration of Application No. 15630/89
5) 4 December 1989 Registration of Application No. 15857/89
6) 31 October 1990 Registration of Application No. 17384/90
Examination of Admissibility
8 April 1991 Commission's decisions to join the
applications; to invite the Government to
submit observations on the admissibility
and merits of the applications insofar as
they concern certain complaints in
Applications Nos. 15252/89, 15628/89 and
17384/90; and to declare inadmissible the
remainder of the applications;
19 July 1991 Government's observations
18 September 1991 Applicant's observations in reply
11 May 1992 Commission's decision to declare the
remainder of Applications Nos. 15252/89,
15628/89 and 17384/90 admissible
Examination of the merits
10 July 1992 Government's observations on the merits
17 October 1992) Commission's consideration of the state of
30 March 1993 ) proceedings
19 April 1993 Applicant's submissions
30 April 1993 Government's submissions
13 May 1993 Commission's deliberations on the merits
and final vote
14 May 1993 Adoption of the Report
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
